gateway_knowledge_trash_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'soft-deleted' and 'accessible knowledge space' context, which clarifies scope. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or what 'accessible' means in terms of permissions, but the read-only annotation lowers the bar.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the resource immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description is adequate for a simple read-only list operation, but it lacks details on parameter semantics and any filtering behavior. Given the low complexity, it is minimally complete but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'space' parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. With zero coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('soft-deleted documents in an accessible knowledge space'), which clearly distinguishes it from related tools like gateway_knowledge_document_delete and gateway_knowledge_trash_restore. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: use this when you need to see soft-deleted documents in a knowledge space. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like gateway_knowledge_document_search or gateway_knowledge_trash_restore, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.